G — We have to get them cemented into a very strong relationship. A bond.

L — I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don't have to build it.

G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

L — And he was forty-two.

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve.

G — It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he...

S — She has pictures of him.

G — There would be a picture on the mantle of her, her father, and him. She was madly in love with him at the time and he left her because obviously it wouldn't work out. Now she's twenty-five and she's been living in Nepal since she was eighteen. It's not only that they like each other, it's a very bizarre thing, it puts a whole new perspective on this whole thing. It gives you lots of stuff to play off of between them. Maybe she still likes him. It's something he'd rather forget about and not have come up again. This gives her a lot of ammunition to fight with.

S — In a way, she could say, "You've made me this hard."

G — This is a resource that you can either mine or not. It's not as blatant as we're talking about. You don't think about it that much. You don't immediately realize how old she was at the time. It would be subtle. She could talk about it. "I was jail bait the last time we were together." She can flaunt it at him, but at the same time she never says, "I was fifteen years old." Even if we don't mention it, when we go to cast the part we're going to end up with a woman who's about twenty-three and a hero who's about thirty-five.

S — She is the daughter of the professor who our hero was under the tutelege of. She has this little fragment of the map.

G — He doesn't have to have the fragment in hand. All he has to do is get a copy of it, make a rubbing of it.

L — (this section is not clear, something about the fragments and how he gets them)

I heard rumors that the makers of Raiders of the Lost Ark were going to put in an allusion to an underage rekationship. Looks like that the rumor is true. For the love of God, why do people think of these sorts of things?

Mothers pimping out their own daughters for fun and prizes is probably at the heart of much "sex trafficking," and the Left Coast is obviously Ground Zero.

I still recall seeing Pretty Baby in the theater. (Not great cinema.) A MAJOR element of the studio's promotion of that 1978 movie was breathless description that the 10 year old "star" appeared fully naked. The scene was utterly banal, and Shields looked like a skinny little boy. 40 years later and it still is utterly senseless. The open cesspool of Entertainment Culture in the USA is not new.

At 13, Drew Barrymore routinely passed for 21, and could certainly have conceived and borne children.

Stop pretending that desiring young, fertile women is pathological simply because they're younger than some arbitrary age. It undermines the Right's claim to be on the side of truth. Rather than being treated like children, hot teenage girls should be getting married and having children themselves.

Hollywood is indeed sick. In all likelihood the rumors of pedophile rings are true. Train your sights on those things instead.

In economics, you ALWAYS get more supply of what you pay for (i.e., what you throw money at.)

Brooke Shields went on to fame and fortune in TV despite being an unattractive amazon with minimal talent for reading lines. The lesson in Hollywood is, prostitute yourself enough and you might just succeed.

It's one thing to put molestation in your story because you're trying to say something about it, because it's part of the character that you're writing about. These people do it because they think it's funny. They get off on the idea of slipping things past the squares, or making the squares squirm.

Anyone still think C3PO's effeminacy was just an innocent affectation? Or heck, the Tin Man's?

What's more disturbing, is that these people felt so comfortable saying this stuff, that it was so commonplace and old hat and nothing to shout about, that they thought nothing about it being recorded.

You know, I always took that to mean she was young, maybe 18, so a "child" by comparison to him, and she meant it was wrong because she was his student, or something like that. Guess I assumed too much.

@26 Grayman, you're making a common mistake of applying your sense of decency to others. I err that way, too.

We are of an almost separate species compared to those who make up the topic of this discussion. I can grasp that there are people who prefer the same sex for...sex. I don't understand it, but I grasp they exist.

I do not grasp why people are sexually attracted to those who lack agency. Being sexually attracted to a CHILD is to me the same as being sexually attracted to a person with an IQ of 50, or to someone who is literally comatose.

I rate that as beyond my imagination's imagination. It's so wrong that "grasping" it is impossible. This holds true of women who target teenage boys. The only reason a reasonably attractive adult woman would target a teen for sex is CONTROL, i.e., manipulation.

I do not think people who behave like that are tolerable. They're like someone who thinks it okay to stick a gun in my face to rob me. I do not tolerate such people sharing "the road" with me. When I say "exile," I mean to an island, or out the hatch from 5000 feet. I don't care which, I just want them GONE.

"At 13, Drew Barrymore routinely passed for 21, and could certainly have conceived and borne children."

Some 18 year olds look 16 I don't think this holds water.

"Stop pretending that desiring young, fertile women is pathological simply because they're younger than some arbitrary age. It undermines the Right's claim to be on the side of truth. Rather than being treated like children, hot teenage girls should be getting married and having children themselves."

Anime was a mistake.

"Hollywood is indeed sick. In all likelihood the rumors of pedophile rings are true. Train your sights on those things instead."

this is a demonstration of conspiring to corrupt us and ours. talk about moving the overton window. piece by piece. bit by bit. chipping away at the foundations. year after year. century after century. generations. task passed down from maggot to larva. millenia.

Right. I don't know whether these particular people partake of cheese pizza. But what this tells us is they don't recognize any taboo against it. They don't have to worry that someone in their circle will say, "Dude, eleven? That's gross," let alone fire them or cut ties with them over it. Whether or not they do it themselves, they think it's no big deal.

But they know normal people still have taboos, which they think are silly, so they're always looking for ways to chip away at them. For our own good, surely.

Yikes. Thank god this didn't make it into the film, this likely would have destroyed the franchise before it even began.The reason pedophilia is still ''the great taboo'' is the protective instinct toward children that nearly everyone has.As well as it's yuuge 'squick factor' - with the squick increasing as the age lowers. That's why most people don't get that bent out of shape when it's say, a 36 year old teacher jumping on a 16 year old boy then, well, Indy doing an 11 year old girl. Yes, yes, I know, 100, 150, 200 years ago, 11 would be considered prime marriage age, but nobody uses horses for transportation anymore either.

How can you be so obtuse? This isn't about finding young, nubile women attractive; its about pushing pedophilia. 11 isn't some arbitrary age, its prepubescent for the majority of white girls in the West.

I also took it to that she was an older teen, 16 or 17. Marion had no mother to look after her. She followed her whim to Indy and he was all too happy to disregard boundaries. I never took it that either of them was innocent in the relationship.

Reading this, now, puts the whole situation in a new and disturbing light. " At 16 or 17 it stops being interesting." WTFizzle? Surely the lights on Hollywood Boulevard cannot be snuffed out soon enough.

Hmm, seeing that it was early '78 I can see why this topic was even seriously for this movie. Things were different then, that was the year Brooke Shields starred in a movie as a 12 year old prostitute and to promote the film did a nude spread in Playboy.It wasn't illegal then, but that flick was the primary driver of laws to criminalize it.

They're all about the underage business now, but pitch them a story about starting a colony on an alien planet, where most graduates of the training program are 16-18 and all are required to marry the opposite sex with the expectation of starting a homestead, and watch their heads explode.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people knew this must have happened the first time they saw that move. That line, "I was fifteen!" (Which I could have sworn actually ended up in the movie?) was something that raised my hair a bit, even without a lot of context, it almost had to be something of the (pedophile/hebephile) sort, and I didn't think most people missed that?

Of course it goes way back. (((Arthur Freed))) tried to molest Shirley Temple when she was in talks for The Wizard of Oz and she was only 11. Meanwhile, in the other room, (((Louis Mayer))) (the second M in MGM) was coming on to her mother at the same time.

Freed threw Temple out because she laughed nervously when he whipped out his (((schlong))) (seriously; that is obviously a Jewish word, isn't it?) and she was spared the serial sexual abuse that Judy Garland endured at (((Mayer's))) "hands" which psychologically broke her for the rest of her life. She was 16.

I think in general, even the most "woke" only know about the tip of the iceberg in Hollywood. (Or should I call that (((Hollywood)))). Sure, the Temple and Garland stories are relatively well-known, and everyone knows about (((Roman Polanski)'s anal rape of 13-year old Samantha Gailey. But I almost suspect that hardly anyone who works in Hollywood is anything other than a victim or a victimizer.

dc.sunsets: Hot teenagers are rarely emotionally mature enough to nurture children. Early marriage was NOT a characteristic of Europe/UK during the rise to peak Western Civ.

Also, the risk of pregnancy complications is high during the teens. It's much safer for babies and mothers if women wait to have children in their 20s.

There's always been a subset of men who are highly fixated on youth, but mostly it's a byproduct of the homosexual subculture. Like the poison of feminism, the homosexual obsession with extreme youth has infiltrated - and corrupted - everything.

At 13, Drew Barrymore routinely passed for 21, and could certainly have conceived and borne children.

Stop pretending that desiring young, fertile women is pathological simply because they're younger than some arbitrary age. It undermines the Right's claim to be on the side of truth. Rather than being treated like children, hot teenage girls should be getting married and having children themselves.

Hollywood is indeed sick. In all likelihood the rumors of pedophile rings are true. Train your sights on those things instead.

Show some moral sense,

16 is one thing, its young but its the age of consent in most nations and many US states . Its up the parents to keep older men away

13 year olds are almost children, and neither emotionally nor physically ready to be wives and mothers. The exceptions these days that pass for adult often are abuse victims at least if they are White . Grown men who are interested in underdeveloped young women are a problem and a criminal .

Someone sexually interested in an eleven year old and who knows reasonably said girl is eleven needs a bullet

You know, I always took that to mean she was young, maybe 18, so a "child" by comparison to him, and she meant it was wrong because she was his student, or something like that. Guess I assumed too much.

Same here. It makes me kind of queasy knowing the directors interpretation since I loved Raiders as a youngster. That said, our original interpretation can stay given the age difference between the actors and the fact i don't think Harrison Ford is a Pizza enthusiast

@64-I should clarify, I didn't mean actual sex as something happening. That wouldn't be unremarkable even if it was an exceptional 15 year-old who was inarguably sexually and mentally mature.

The thing is, you can tell they're reusing and lowering her age in conversation to find the "sweet spot." Can't be too young, because then the audience would rebel. Can't be too old, because then the audience wouldn't know you're being transgressive. Has to be just a hair beyond normal.

The way they talk about it, this is for the sake of what's "interesting." It also happens to be the strategy for getting people to accept pedophilia. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it "defining deviance downward."

You get people to accept what's a little bit beyond what they accepted previously. Eventually, you find yourself at 11 or 12. That's the hope, anyway.

Was nothing from our childhood wholesome? How many generations in are we on this wholesale sabotage? Two? Three? When the anger crashes through it's going to be ugly.

More like four or five. #41 takes us all the way back to The Wizard of Oz (released 1939). Barnhardt dates the pedo infiltration of the RCC to the 1920s. The 1920s bubble itself featured much action to undermine the quasi-Christian sexual morality of the Victorian era. The 1920s also happens to coincide with era after the takeover by the (((Banksteins))) of the economy: (((Federal Reserve))) in 1913, Income tax (1913), followed by a vast concentration of wealth thanks to the Great War of Goyim killing one another by the millions while the (((happy merchants))) raked it in, League of Nations, Women's Suffrage (1920), ACLU founded (1920), etc. (((They))) owned Hollywood by 1920. One of the tribe who apparently really converted to Christianity have a whole run-down of it during a speech at the Waldorf-Astoria in 1960. Nobody paid attention, of course. We cannot say we were not warned, even as far back as 2000 years ago.

It's very easy of course to say it's all the work of (((the tribe))), but that's really missing the underlying problem, which VD correctly identified the other day as 'Neo-Babelism' (Crystal Methodism has been used for this religion as well). Note that Lucas is not one of (((them))) yet in a very real sense he is one of them, even more than (((some tribesmen))) are. Now and again you'll see (((them))) toss one of their own tribe under the bus to hell (Bernhard Goetz, for example) and you'll likewise see (((their leaders))) rushing to defend a (((tribesman))) whose fondest memories of youth were of doing the dirty work for the Nazis in betraying fellow (((tribesmen))) - the worst type of treason. The explanation of mere tribalism is simply not sufficient to account for such behavior, though the (((tribe))) absolutely deserves every shekel of credit, with fully accumulated and compounded interest, for its actions. The same, of course applies to folks like Lucas, Corzine, the Squid-Family Bush, the Clinton Gang, etc., etc.

Lucas and Spielberg rip off the creative all the time. ERB's Jed---turns into Jedi----banth----bantha--- it goes on and on. Spielberg buys out movie scripts all the time and then uses the ideas for his own. He and Thomas Edison were twins of a different mother.

(Relatively, say in the 13-18 range) Young girls commonly become infatuated with older men (say in the 17-35 range). This is a known thing, it's why a lot of cultures in the past have required chaperones for young women.

It happens because they see that men are becoming secure in themselves and their resources around those ages, and that solidity is one of the big things women and girls are looking for.

On the other hand of the scale, while women start to have gradually increasing chances of offspring having congenital defects once they hit about 30 or so, they definitely have a very high risk of serious complications if they have a child younger than about 16-19 too (depends on the person). Being able to become pregnant be damned (yes, girls tend to start puberty between 9-12 years of age, as opposed to boys being around 11-14), it's still a horrible idea to try having children that young.

That being said, infatuation has never been a good reason to do anything at all, especially when the other party absolutely knows better, as is always the case with men in that 17-35 range (or God forbid, older).

That line, "I was fifteen!" (Which I could have sworn actually ended up in the movie?)

It doesn't:

Marion: I learned to hate you in the last ten years.Indy: I never meant to hurt you.Marion: I was a child! I was in love! It was wrong and you knew it!Indy: You knew what you were doing.

Back to the transcript:

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

That's important; molestors always like to blame the child for coming onto them. (Remember how conflicted Milo was over blaming his abusers.) "You knew what you were doing."

Karen Allen was 30, so it wasn't obvious to the audience, and it's no surprise many of us assumed she was college age or near it at the time of their affair. But you have to wonder: how many others knew she was supposed to be 25 or younger in that movie? Did Harrison Ford know, when he said that line? Did everyone on set know? Were they all in on the little joke they were having at the expense of us normals?

If you point out things like the Tin Man's lisping, many people will object with, "Come on, audiences didn't know about things like that back then. Things were more innocent." Maybe audiences didn't know because they hadn't been barraged with it yet, but the sickos in Hollywood certainly knew then as well as they do now, and they were having the same fun.

@69-Perhaps unremarkable was the wrong word. It's not overly abnormal, I might say.

Depending on the 15 year-old. Also depending on the relationship. Some of them are indistinguishable from older teenagers from afar. Some of them are mentally like 18.

I don't know, but I consider it possible that I've been attracted to a 15 year-old before without knowing it. I haven't generally been attracted to girls under college-age since I reached that age. I find them too girlish. But you never know.

The thing is, though, that they wanted to present them as having a close relationship. Even though Indy knew it was wrong of them to be romantic, as she says, if he had feelings for her and knew her well, that would be wrong. Because then he would be in a position to know her personality and know just how immature she is.

More than 9 out of 10 15 year-olds are too immature for me to take seriously as people, let alone want to be romantic with.

But I almost suspect that hardly anyone who works in Hollywood is anything other than a victim or a victimizer.

My ex-sister-in-law was an aspiring screenwriter who couldn't wait to get out of the square Midwest to pursue her dreams. When she was back for a visit one time, she was talking about what it takes to get into show business, and said (not unapprovingly, just matter-of-fact) that every male movie star has had to "perform" for an executive at least once along the way to get there.

I enjoyed "The Professional" years ago but recently saw the extras for "Leon" the extended "with relationship between Reno and Portman" European version of the film. It's rather ruined Luc Besson for me, I had always liked his popcorn SF films, but now... "Americans will have a problem with it, but it's very French, we're laid back about such things."

Extremely creepy...My wife can't watch the much ballyhooed musical 'Gigi', which was made in the '60s, because it is so obviously about pedophilia, but none of the critics ever mentioned that...So the sickness goes way back.

@61 Desdichado:The story goes that Shirley Temple pointed and laughed. It worked.Not only was Judy Garland pushed to the casting couch many times, by the time she finished Wizard of Oz she was thoroughly hooked on both amphetamines and barbiturates. Which led, of course, to her eventual early death.

@56-I don't think many people guessed the secret ephebophilic intentions. As @78 says, Karen Allen didn't look that young, and Indy was a college professor whose female students were shown to be infatuated with him.

I bet most people assumed she was a student or something and the relationship was only somewhat ethically wrong.

More than 9 out of 10 15 year-olds are too immature for me to take seriously as people, let alone want to be romantic with.

I think this is another part of the problem with films, much as I love them. Give an actor or actress mature sounding lines and direction and use multiple takes to make them seem like a 32yo in a 16yo's body even if the actual actor is appropriately immature - train the viewer to see teens as mature adults and to look for "old souls in young bodies" out in the real world and treat them that way.

@77-I should like to add as well, there's pedophilia and hebephilia, which are evil. But then there's ephebophilia, which can be evil but not necessarily. Because it stretches from mid-puberty to the brink of adulthood. Some people are indistinguishable from adults during this period, which stretches roughly from 15 to 19.

I was thinking of attraction and interaction short of sex. Which is what they presented in the final movie. They had a relationship of sorts, which was at least quasi-romantic, but I don't think they went all the way.

The age of maturity is always going to arbitrary, because people mature differently. But 15 is definitely on the low end, and closer to classic pedophilia. Homos love boys around that age, incidentally, which is why I think of them as ephebophiliacs as much as homosexuals. So it has the capacity to be evil.

Guys will copulate with blow up dolls and now they are making lifelike silicone real-dolls and are talking about sex-robots. A womans purpose is to get fucked and make babies perferably with her husband. Beyond that their contributions to society are minimal. The idea that their minds need to be nurtured for eons in the education system and they need to self-actualize in some way is killing the demographics of the West. When you encourage women to marry late then you end up with a buch of worthless whores that no self respecting man one would love or want to marry.

Sorry @tublecane, my mom defenses were up. Maybe I should change my name to mother-of-teenagers as a general warning. I wasn't looking at your hypothetical discussion of ideas but rather specific examples I've seen in my Gen X lifetime. (like the friend who married a 32 year old at 18- didn't end well) I'm not suggesting you'd date a 15 year old yourself. My apologies! --stbd

@80 Quadko:That was one of the things ''the production code''/Hayes Act banned, the casting of children in roles clearly intended to be played by adults (there were a few). A modern (post-code) example is Bugsy Malone with a all child cast doing a prohibition-era gangster film.

Honestly even w glancing look at Spielberg's prime from the 80s to early 90s makes me suspicious. Count how many​ of his films conspicuously include child actors.. and also, come on. The guy just Looks like a dirty pervert

DaveInjustice wrote:Honestly even w glancing look at Spielberg's prime from the 80s to early 90s makes me suspicious. Count how many​ of his films conspicuously include child actors.. and also, come on. The guy just Looks like a dirty pervert

I remember this scene from the Raiders of the Lost Ark. Every time I saw it it would make me a little uncomfortable due to her age. I always figured it was a minor oversight or artistic license, but this shows that it was intentional.

So in THIS case we know that the Jews were being very deliberate in their subversive messaging. But of course we still have no proof that all the other subversive messages we are bombarded with by the Jews are intentional. I'm sure all the rest are just a coincidence!

Which pissed me off for a different reason: he left her (at the altar?) because he realized it wasn't going to work out -- dick move, but not evil, and he didn't know she was pregnant. Then for revenge, she kept his son's existence from him for 20 years, and made him miss out on most of his fatherhood. When she finally tells him, she does most of the yelling, and he gets over it before the scene ends. At the end, the son says, "Why didn't you stick around, Dad," like he was a deadbeat dad, and Indy just smiles and eats it. Nauseating.

I hope you won't start poking around Ancestry.com. You will be flabbergasted, learning the awful truth that (nearly) all your foremothers married and first bore children in their teenaged years!

In many ways, mandatory secondary schooling is the perversion. A number of kids in my hs ("back in the day") married in school, with parents' permission, or literally the first Saturday after graduation while still 17.

As all the farm boys said, "If there's grass on the field, play ball" and other, grosser versions.

I am not condoning the perverts and monsters of #pedogate. Just pointing out the facts of human biology. YMMV. I myself married late and wife and I are often mistaken for grandparents outside our SWPL enclave.

mature sounding lines and direction and use multiple takes to make them seem like a 32yo in a 16yo's body even if the actual actor is appropriately immature

The reason Morgan Freeman is in so many movies is he is the only black they could find that could remember 5 words in a row. Next time you see a smart black on TV count the max words till a camera cut.

The age of maturity is always going to arbitrary, because people mature differently.

Black 70IQ is like a child in an adults body, white 70IQ is like a motor sputtering.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:"I was a child. It was wrong and you knew it."I figured he was in his early 20s and she was 17 or 18 or something like that. Stuck out in the middle of nowhere on some archaeological dig with dad, bored silly, only one young man around, and he's attractive and adventurous. That all makes some kind of sense.

Talking about her being 11 is just plain crazy. Makes me wonder what Lucas wanted to adopt a bunch of daughters for after his marriage went kablam, quite honestly.

@104-I don't see why "it was wrong and you knew it" couldn't mean he prevented it from going beyond the sentimental. Like one night she gives him the goo-goo eyes, and Indy says, "No, Marion. This is wrong, and I know it. Now get out of my office; I have papers to grade "

@28 "But encouraging 16 year old girls to marry (presumably men much older than they) and begin raising kids may not be the best notion."

CAPULETMy child is yet a stranger in the world.She hath not seen the change of fourteen years.Let two more summers wither in their prideEre we may think her ripe to be a bride.

PARISYounger than she are happy mothers made.

CAPULETAnd too soon marred are those so early made.

Juliet is just shy of her fourteenth birthday; it's assumed Romeo is just a bit older - perhaps fifteen years old. In 1619, marriage age was about 23 for women, 26 for men. The age of consent was 12 for a girl, 14 for a boy.

@33 "I do not grasp why people are sexually attracted to those who lack agency. Being sexually attracted to a CHILD is .."

THIS is what I absolutely 100% do not understand about "Hitlery face down in haitian cheese" and importing hot dogs to the White House for a party, and all that pizzagate stuff... (Okay-so, I'm kinda normal too...)

WHAT could possibly be the attraction of oral sex on a 6-yr-old? Is it just the ??pleasure?? of destroying innocence?

(If this comment is too tactless, Dark Lord, feel free to delete... just typing it is making me feel sick!)

Marion: I've learned to hate you in the last ten years.Indy: I never meant to hurt you. Marion: I was a child. I was in love. It was wrong and you knew it. Indy: You knew what you were doing. Marion: Now I do. This is my place. Get out!

Knowing what I know now from the transcript, it probably makes more sense that Indy knew her as the pubescent daughter of his archeology mentor with whom he went too far. But that's not the way it sounded to me watching the movie, and not the way I assume most of its audience takes it.

The movie conditions you to think of Indy as a man who attracts interest from young girls through his job. Indy's relationship with Marion cane through her father who was a collector of artifacts, and it's not much of a leap to think Marion was Indy's student. That's what I / assumed. In which case "I was a child" would be hyperbolic.

Watching the movie in my ignorance, I interpreted the dialogue to mean she came into him and he spurned her, so she bears a grudge. Women aren't as used to rejection as men.

Just so happens that the pedophile's excuse is always that the kid wanted it. You can say that at 15 Marion wouldn't be competent to ask for it even if she did want Indy. However, the audience isn't told she was 15. I and presumably lots of people assumed she was college-aged. 18 or 19.

@22 "Hot teenage girls" may be fertile, but that's not the point. The point is it's obvious which way Hollywood has been pushing things for a very long time. It's part of a concerted effort to normalize every possible form of sexual deviancy, pedophilia included, which in turn is part of a broader attack on traditional European (Christian) values.

I'd say read between the lines, but you don't even have to. I mean, eleven years old ffs.

Don't forget too, that "our" society has been pathologized to the nth degree! Little girls are massively 'sexualized' before they even reach 6 or 7! (Really! Underpants for toddler-girls with 'juicy' and 'sexy' across the butt!? Who is THAT for, since the toddlers can't even read yet?!) Used to be, only gypsies pierced ears on little girls. Used to be, girls up till nearly 18 were pretty innocent/naive and UN-sexualized. They didn't see the 'sexual messages' from boys and men around them. NOW, they all know what the messages are, and how adult women are supposed to respond, so that's how THEY think they are supposed to respond.

And, of course, boys and men are sexualized to crave the 'sexual objects' they are exposed to growing up -- thus all the models and actresses who look like 14-yr-old boys (more recently, 14-yr-old boys with big breasts glued on). (Where's Gina Lollabridgida when you need to see a woman?!) And sullen -- all the models are sullen, which a child will be if a man is making passes at her. (((Who))) is teaching White children this is what they are / should be / should want?)

A friend is struggling because his 13-yr-old wants to wear what he calls (thankfully, to within her hearing!) 'vulva-shorts' -- because "they're all the fashion now." On 13-YEAR-OLDS!! He needs to stop her (!) without freaking her out -- she's a darling, innocent, nice, Christian girl. He and his wife are doing all the right things -- but that means she's partly too innocent to understand how it's perceived outside of her "nice people" group.

"My ex-sister-in-law was an aspiring screenwriter who couldn't wait to get out of the square Midwest to pursue her dreams. When she was back for a visit one time, she was talking about what it takes to get into show business, and said (not unapprovingly, just matter-of-fact) that every male movie star has had to "perform" for an executive at least once along the way to get there.

I'd like to think that's not true."

Elijah Wood has actually talked about the issue before - according to him, it's a lot more common than people realize, and he was fortunate that his parents were around to watch out for him. He's given a couple of interviews on the subject.

It never fails: we start talking about something that's obviously sick, like some guys being "amused" at the idea of a 42-year-old man having sex with an 11-year-old girl and then abandoning her, and then pretty soon we're in the weeds talking about how very different cultures married 15-year-old girls to men in their 20s and that worked out okay.

I don't see why "it was wrong and you knew it" couldn't mean he prevented it from going beyond the sentimental. Like one night she gives him the goo-goo eyes, and Indy says, "No, Marion. This is wrong, and I know it.

Come on, he doesn't say it was wrong, she does -- after punching him in the face. She's still going to be that mad at him and feel like she has the right to slug him for turning her down too bluntly 10 years earlier?

In Raiders, she acts exactly like a hurt lover; you have to really reach to interpret it any other way. I don't recall anything from the fourth movie to contradict that; what are you referring to?

@120 -- oh bad typing, sorry:This: A friend is struggling because his 13-yr-old wants to wear what he calls (thankfully, to within her hearing!) 'vulva-shorts' -- because "they're all the fashion now."

puberty starts between 8-13yo in girls and ends by 15-17. menarche is usually around 13, but brain maturation continues up through ~25

@28 and @112 well done for mentioning that Western Europeans typically marry late. I wanted to emphasize that by the end of the 16th century the "modern" Western European marriage pattern had been fully established: mid-20s average age of 1st marriage, restricted fertility etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

"feel like she has the right to slug him for turning her down too bluntly 10 years earlier?"

In my experience, women don't need a good reason to lash out, especially when feelings are involved. Also, remember this is an unrealistic action-adventure movie. They want to set up Marion as a Strong, Independent Woman who can drink any man under the table (at least I think that was supposed to be a man) and slugs old friends in the face.

Yes, her humiliation from being rejected could still give her string feelz. Possibly she hadn't thought of Indy in a while and seeing him in the flesh brought it all back.

"You have to really reach to interpret it any other way"

If you say so. As I said, the dialogue makes more sense now that I know she was supposed to be 15. But I never felt like I was reaching, and it honestly never occurred to me Marion was a minor. I don't think I'm alone in that.

"Why be surprised that Hollyweird would be in favor of "pedophilia"? They're in favor, or don't have a problem with, every other sexual perversion or degeneracy."

Absolutely. But it's not just Hollywood, it's the elites. Wait until Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are exposed, compliments of the NYAG's Office and the little black book of Jeffrey Epstein. Then we'll see how many people here back Trump.

YIH August 04, 2017 2:04 PMAs well as it's yuuge 'squick factor' - with the squick increasing as the age lowers. That's why most people don't get that bent out of shape when it's say, a 36 year old teacher jumping on a 16 year old boy then, well, Indy doing an 11 year old girl. Yes, yes, I know, 100, 150, 200 years ago, 11 would be considered prime marriage age, but nobody uses horses for transportation anymore either.

I think it was on this blog when I first read of the Hajnal Line. Pretty interesting. In Western culture, teenage marriages were actually rare. And to you and Darwin Is a Harsh Mistress who said: "D.C.:

I hope you won't start poking around Ancestry.com. You will be flabbergasted, learning the awful truth that (nearly) all your foremothers married and first bore children in their teenaged years!, it was poking around on ancestry.com that I learned that teenage marriages were pretty rare, especially in England and Scotland. I can't get back but one generation in Ireland. Almost all of my ancestors first marriages and first child were in their early to mid twenties. Going back 5 generation, my paternal great-grandmother, from England, married in NY at age 16, first and only child age 17. I've got to go back another 2 generations to find another example. If I could trace my ancestry in Ireland, I'd probably find more examples- Ireland is on the other side of the Hajnal Line. Turns out my ancestor's names were very very common, and I can find so many "John Does" marrying "Mary Roes" and having kids named John or Mary that guessing which ones were actually my ancestors would be just that- guessing.

@144-"Spielberg conditioned us early on to see Jones as the reluctant fantasy of a 20 yr. old schoolgirl"

Yes, exactly. That's what was on my mind when I heard about him with the "child" Marion.

"The part about 'ten years ago' just flies right under the radar"

But Karen Allen looked like she was about 30, and Ford looked like he was 40. So the age thing still works out. I guess Marion was supposed to be in her early 20s in the filmmakers' minds, but it didn't come off that way.

@140-I didn't mean what age she was supposed to be if the filmmakers had their druthers.

I meant supposed to be in the filmmakers' minds as reflected in the final product (which they wouldn't spell out for the audience, but hoped they'd understand on some level). Based on the above, they settled on 15.

It's not explicit in the film as presented, but Indy fans had already figured this out by counting back from Indy's canonical age and the age of the actress playing Marion. Indy is clearly an antihero in the first film (he's cleaned up and Flanderized in the sequels) who drinks hard, casually shoots people, and uses women like tissues. So I took this little detail as further evidence that he's a scumbag.

Never imagined a conversation like this went on, though. Changes the impression.

I saw ROTLA when it came out in the 80s, in a theater. The weirdest part of this discussion-I don't remember any of it. Evidently, the whole thing flew right over my head, and seemed unremarkable, and I do not remember any discussion about this subject, in regards to the movie, at the time.I'm not saying there wasn't, but I never heard any of it, and I asked 2 people my age who first saw the movie back then, and they don't remember it, either.I've always thought George Lucas looked like a pervert. Guess I had better instincts, than I knew.

Azure Amaranthine wrote:I'm pretty sure a lot of people knew this must have happened the first time they saw that move. That line, "I was fifteen!" (Which I could have sworn actually ended up in the movie?) was something that raised my hair a bit, even without a lot of context, it almost had to be something of the (pedophile/hebephile) sort, and I didn't think most people missed that?

Pennywise wrote:Wait until Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are exposed, compliments of the NYAG's Office and the little black book of Jeffrey Epstein. Then we'll see how many people here back Trump.Do you really hallucinate that if that evidence existed they wouldn't have trotted it out yet? you are delusional.

Lol I see lots of blaming of the Jooooooos. No wonder the alt-right is dying.

Meanwhile in reality it is possible to have sexual experiences between the ages of 12 and 15. As a gay man, I had mine at age 13 and I turned out just fine. Sometimes pizza is just pizza. And a healthy sex life is just healthy.

Zeroh Tollrants wrote:I saw ROTLA when it came out in the 80s, in a theater. The weirdest part of this discussion-I don't remember any of it. Evidently, the whole thing flew right over my head, and seemed unremarkable, and I do not remember any discussion about this subject, in regards to the movie, at the time.Strange, because it was definitely a topic of conversation among my friends.

But I never felt like I was reaching, and it honestly never occurred to me Marion was a minor.

Fair enough. With a 30-year-old actress, I don't really think they intended anyone to guess that anyway. I think it was their little in-joke, and if anything, they hoped people would get just a hint of it from "I was a child!" It's even possible they changed her age later before casting, but that's not important. What's important is what they wanted to do, that they wanted to do it because it would subvert that taboo, and that they thought it was funny.

I'm still curious what you saw in the 4th movie that made you think it was more innocent, though. I've seen it, but it was so bad I've forgotten a lot of details.

Remember the co-ed who wrote "I love you" on her eyelids in the classroom scene?

That's in the fourth movie, when he's like 80 (unless it's also in the first one).

She wasn't supposed to be 15. She was supposed to be 11 or 12.

No, Lucas initially suggested 11 (or 10), but Spielberg bargained him up to 15. If they'd intended her to seem 21 in Raiders, they surely would have gotten a younger actress. At 30, she looks just young enough that when she says, "I was a child" ten years ago, you just might wonder.... I didn't, but you could have.

I largely blame the crossover readers from AG who showed up from certain PUA sites...

I'm not even saying they're wrong on the points. My grandmother was married at 16, for 50+ years until my grandfather's death, raising 5 kids and helping to run a successful farm. Nothing wrong with that, in that (rural) culture where it was accepted and prepared for.

But there's no connection between that and a group of men chuckling about a 42/11 sexual fling, except the very tenuous fact that both fall into the general "under-18" category that most people find unacceptable today. So why bring it up, when it's like bringing up jaywalking in a discussion about what the penalty should be for murder?

"I'm not even saying they're wrong on the points. My grandmother was married at 16, for 50+ years until my grandfather's death, raising 5 kids and helping to run a successful farm. Nothing wrong with that, in that (rural) culture where it was accepted and prepared for.

But there's no connection between that and a group of men chuckling about a 42/11 sexual fling, except the very tenuous fact that both fall into the general "under-18" category that most people find unacceptable today. So why bring it up, when it's like bringing up jaywalking in a discussion about what the penalty should be for murder?

And yet it always comes up, which is curious."

It's the obsession with assaulting cultural standards, to the point where psychologically healthy people look askance because "why the hell are you going on about that", even if - as noted - there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it. It manifests in other ways, of course, but that's one where it really makes people wonder. And I have to question if these guys realize the only result of their obsession is to make people (a) wonder about their ulterior motives, (b) viscerally disagree.

I think there's probably also the reflexive defense of people who realize that they aren't normal, on a very tangentially related subject. And to be fair, the fact that Lucas brought up "15 as borderline" does make it somewhat on-topic.

We can trace our lineage back to England on seven or eight branches. Dutch ancestry ends in NY. Our French Protestant line is Carolingian and well documented. Records surrounding the period of the War for Independence are spotty for the Loyalists. We can trace our Irish ancestor only a few generations for the same reasons as you. Even Irish Protestants use the same few names and it's impossible to detangle them without source documents.

Here's what I gleaned:

1. True to stereotype, Irish men do marry late!2. Our New York/New England "settler" women married young. Youngest grandmother was 13. Many were 16 or 17. 3. The oldest productive first marriage was around age 35 and facing the Wall.4. Most new brides were under 21 and needed their parents' approval.5. Widow remarriage was quick, with issue forthcoming the first year if she was still of childbearing age.6. There were a surprising number of old maids. Lots of unmarried men were literal MGTOW and lost to the genealogy. (Frontier? War casualties? Scalped by Injuns? We don't know!)7. New grooms were usually but a few years older that their brides. There were a few 30-somethings marrying teenagers; they were all widowers with children and a farm.8. Widows didn't seem to care so much about the age of their second or third husbands. "I got me a man!" seemed to be operative. Younger and much older are common.9. Premature parental death was common. Some of my ancestors, men and women alike, had three even four marriages.10. Many of my ancestors were settlers and original colonists, taming the Hudson Valley and surrounds. Most of them were actively involved in the War, having taken unambiguous political stands on both sides. I believe this was the most important factor: hard lives with no expectation of success meant early marriage as a basic survival expectation. This extended to widows/widowers who were not too picky within their community.

By the 20th C, marriage patterns were familiar in all respects, a steep fertility drop-off after WWII.

Brooke Shield's mom must have allowed some awful stuff to be done to her daughter, because when Brooke turned 18, she got herself legally freed from her mother's oversight. She and her mom were estranged for years after that.

I suspect the reason Shirley Temple's mom was so hated by the Studio bosses is because she never left her daughter's side. The Studio exec's tried to get the little tyke out of mom's watchful vision from the time she made her first movie as a tyke.

I can only imagine how awful it was for kids who didn't have parents who stood between them and the predatory Studio Bosses.

Quadko wrote:I enjoyed "The Professional" years ago but recently saw the extras for "Leon" the extended "with relationship between Reno and Portman" European version of the film. It's rather ruined Luc Besson for me, I had always liked his popcorn SF films, but now... "Americans will have a problem with it, but it's very French, we're laid back about such things."

That was handled very well in European release of the the movie as I remember

Matilda very damaged is infatuated with Leon who tells her very politely she is too young and ought to allow herself to be a child.

She does and he adopts her as a daughter.

The writers handled this is a way both European and American audiences could handle

Now the scene wasn't necessary exactly but the relationship needed to be built somehow . I'd have found another way but I'm not French either

Its uncomfortable as Americans myself included are often or were often prudish but its the moral choice

@167 Except for marriage age, my ancestry is similar. Looking closer right now, once I get back 6 generations or more there is a higher frequency of teenage marriages and childbirth in the Northeast, but not among my Southern relatives. Primary reason for the men remarrying was wife died in childbirth. Primary cause of death for husbands appears to be accidents of one type or another, frequently involving horses. But cause of death isn't as well documented for the men. The Massachusetts down to Hudson Valley branch includes the Gardner and Weed family, and the oldest reliable trace is back to 1707 in Gloucester, MA. Most cousin marriages in my tree come from from those two families, who frequently intermarried, allowing me to note that I was really surprised, as I thought gardners always hated weeds.... (The only reason I mentioned names was so I could say that.) One of the big differences between my direct ancestors and other people's is that very few of my direct ancestors once they arrived in North America died within 50 miles of where they were born. And I have distant relatives still living in the same house built by a direct ancestor in the late 1700's. My ancestors seem to have been infected with wanderlust.

I forgot to mention- there is one thing about early America a lot of people seem to not notice as they do their ancestry. A whole lot of first kids were born prematurely when you look at marriage date and birthdate of first child.

I hope you won't start poking around Ancestry.com. You will be flabbergasted, learning the awful truth that (nearly) all your foremothers married and first bore children in their teenaged years!

In many ways, mandatory secondary schooling is the perversion. A number of kids in my hs ("back in the day") married in school, with parents' permission, or literally the first Saturday after graduation while still 17.

As all the farm boys said, "If there's grass on the field, play ball" and other, grosser versions.

I am not condoning the perverts and monsters of #pedogate. Just pointing out the facts of human biology. YMMV. I myself married late and wife and I are often mistaken for grandparents outside our SWPL enclave.

I rewatched the professional not long ago (I think the standard cut) but what struck me was how Matilda seemed to be the aggressor in some situations, manipulating the semi child like Leon to assist her on her mission to get revenge. It was an odd twist to me. Not sure if that was to avoid casting Leon in the light of being the one with the power which would possibly make it seem like he was taking advantage

"At 30, she looks just young enough that when she says, "I was a child" ten years ago, you just might wonder.... I didn't, but you could have."

For my take, the first time I recall seeing the movie I was probably around nine or ten, and It didn't pop any higher than "What is this, I don't get it, sounds weird." The next time I saw it I was probably about 13, and that was when the hackles went up (I started puberty extremely early for a male). I had the fortune of being homeschooled (and thus never really heard about inappropriate teacher-student relationships, so that thought never entered my mind) and was young enough that pretty much the whole age range from about 20 to 35 blended together in my mind (actually, it still does a lot of the time) and I just subconsciously assumed they were all 19-24.

From that perspective, to me, there was no possible way they were talking about something that wasn't messed up. To add to that though, my whole perspective of society at large at that time was that it was absurdly sexually perverse and filthy (because it was, and is), so I didn't know better than to think it was similar to all the other disgusting refuse.

There might be something to take away from this, in that our society is f***ed up in every other way, why did any of us imagine that this particular way was especially off-limits for some reason?

Is anybody finally going to bring down Hollywood and it's pedophile elites? Maybe Castalia House can make the documentary that Mike Cernovich has been talking about for years. Just get Corey Feldman, Elijah Wood, Brooke Shields and the rest to finally tell you the truth. If they don't speak up, they must know that they are damning countless more children to their fate.

Definitely a bit (((sperg))) here. Not all, not even most, but a bit. In both senses. Don't ever expect me to admit that again, it's not matriarchal or significant, so it means nothing.

Some of the others are just (((full)) "spergs", and some are full spergs.

"there is one thing about early America a lot of people seem to not notice as they do their ancestry. A whole lot of first kids were born prematurely when you look at marriage date and birthdate of first child."

That sounds a lot less like a political marriage and more of a Biblical marriage done late (read: with a shotgun/when the relatives caught on).

"You are misinformed."

For someone who knows how clue is actually played, there's an awful lot of information extrapolable from that, dc.

Here is how I have always assumed that line was meant.Women always claim that their younger selves were "just children". They despise or are extremely jealous of younger women, even themselves. Women and girls always refuse to take agency for their actions. It is rare for any woman to claim they were solely responsible for some shameful or wrong act in their past, and even rarer for them to stick to that claim over time rather than a 2 minute confession followed by ongoing denial.

The 80 year old women in church. The pre-teen girls. teenagers. College students, working girls. All ages, cultures.

So, don't be shocked that Hollywood in its perversity gave something that you watched in innocence and meant it as perversion. Hollywood is a vortex of evil. Wholly owned by Satan. Satan is a master deceiver, so he disguises what his aims are and works with some lies mixed into the truth.

Possibly OT - when it comes to the sexualization of kids that's another area where money matters. From what I've seen you have to shell out some money to keep your toddler/pre-teen daughters from looking like hookers. They aren't just sexualizing kids. They're sexualizing kids of parent who can't afford to buy nicer clothes. And yes, I know there are ways around it - size up, buy thrift, etc. They're still screwing with people who shouldn't have to budget to buy for jeans for their 8yo that weren't designed by some gay pedo.

Quadko wrote:I enjoyed "The Professional" years ago but recently saw the extras for "Leon" the extended "with relationship between Reno and Portman" European version of the film. It's rather ruined Luc Besson for me, I had always liked his popcorn SF films, but now... "Americans will have a problem with it, but it's very French, we're laid back about such things."

This mirrors my experience and opinion. I enjoyed the Professional but after seeing the full version.......